What new features in Lightroom 6 ?

[bitm07]

With Adobe Photoshop Lightoom 6 expected to be released later this year, what new featured would you like to see in the new version ?.

[bob frost]

bob frost wrote:

I thought LR was on a 18month release schedule, but had now switched to a 12 month release schedule. But I may be wrong.

I clearly was wrong!! Assuming we get another beta release first, it's fast heading towards a 2yr schedule. This month, December, is 18months since LR5 was released in June '13.

Perhaps they have given up fixed-release schedules for LR, now it is partly in CC.

Bob Frost

[AnOpticalView]

1. Gotta have Network intelligence and be able to store images on a Network or External Drive.  Proxy thumnail images should be used for editting with final changes on 'real' image.  This of course should be a User choice.
2. Use 64 bit operating systems and GPU acceleration.
3. Font size in panels should be resizable - thought everyone in the world had done this to enable Users?
4. Should integrate smoothly and correctly (very buggy at the moment) with Photoshop (all versions) not just CC
5. Should be independant of Creative Cloud (I KNOW this will NEVER happen!!!) if the User chooses.
6. Should background synchronize and optimise catalogs (databases) in the BACKGROUND!
7. Should support 16 bit images and processing
8. Look as sweet as Elements 12 - certainly NOT essential
9. include sophiosticated batch conversion and resizing particularly for Digital Projection - Currently 1400 x 1050 sRGB in UK Club community
10. Better plugin integration - its clumsy in Lightroom - see Photoshop for HOW TO DO IT.
11. Most important - support new cameras for up to 5 years post relaese instead of abandoning the CUSTOMER and hard marketing Creative Cloud which is great for Companies
12. I could continue but I will not as LR6 BETA is imminent (or should be) I doubt any of my suggested changes that are not already implemented will be?

Long live Lightroom and Photoshop Wither and Die Creative Cloud!

[areohbee]

Dumb Marine,

It seems at least some of your requests are already implemented, thus I was confused by having them requested for Lr6.

DumbMarine wrote:

1. Gotta have Network intelligence and be able to store images on a Network or External Drive.  Proxy thumnail images should be used for editting with final changes on 'real' image.  This of course should be a User choice.

This is already implemented, no? I mean, images can be stored anywhere (that's always been true), and @Lr5 one can edit via smart previews when 'real' image is offline.

DumbMarine wrote:

2. Use 64 bit operating systems and GPU acceleration.

Lr already takes advantage of 64-bit operating systems (but not GPU acceleration). In other words, the 64-bit version is a recompilation of the source code, not a 32-bit version that runs on 64-bit computers too.

DumbMarine wrote:

3. Font size in panels should be resizable - thought everyone in the world had done this to enable Users?

Not sure what you meant by the 2nd part of this, but part1 can be done using Jeffrey Friedl's Online Lightroom Configurator.

DumbMarine wrote:

5. Should be independant of Creative Cloud (I KNOW this will NEVER happen!!!) if the User chooses.

User can choose to buy/maintain Lightroom independent of Creative Cloud now. Granted, if you buy Photoshop + Lightroom, Lightroom will be available via the cloud, but even then you can download and install independently if you prefer - stand-alone download will find creative cloud licensing, I *think* (somebody correct me if that's wrong).

DumbMarine wrote:

7. Should support 16 bit images and processing

It already does - always has.

Perhaps I've misunderstood what you were asking/hoping for in some cases - if so, please forgive and enlighten...

Rob

[AnOpticalView]

Rob,

         Thanks for a more measured response than a couple of others I have had.

By Network intelligence I mean for the catalog?  I dont have LR6 But my understanding is the catalog cannot be on another machine on a network (server)?  Great news if it is.

By font size I thought most development companies (of software) had enabled their products for the disabled?  But thanks for the pointer to Jeffrey Friedl's Online Lightroom Configurator, something I was unaware of.

Quote "Should be independant of Creative Cloud" - we will see how long this persists.  If you use standalone CS6 (Creative Suite Production Premium) as I do you will see many part implemented CC applications that just dont work but are deployed to me needlessly.  Indeed I can make a decision (and I have) not to be TRAPPED ON THE MERRY-GO-ROUND that is Creative Cloud.  While CC makes sense for large commercial users and those that always pass costs off to customers it makes no sense for the enthusiast.  Even the dramatic price cutting ADOBE has been forced into to encourage uptake is risky as the adopter cannot control inevitable future price-rises but by then stand-alone Photoshop (for example) will be unavailable?

Quote "Should support 16 bit images and processing"  - my misunderstanding.  I know LR4 can import 16 bit images but is the Print module outputting in 16 bit?  It might well be but something I read recently said not?  LR5 might well already do this but I am waiting for LR6 to upgrade.

thanks

Ian

[TheDigitalDog]

DumbMarine wrote:

I know LR4 can import 16 bit images but is the Print module outputting in 16 bit? 

Depends. On Windows no. On Mac, with the right print driver, yes. Can you see any difference? Sometimes, with a very strong and powerful loupe. The Epson Pro line drivers support 16-bit through the driver.

[AnOpticalView]

Useful reply Andrew.  Although I do not accept the Loupe excuse.  Future proofing is what it is all about.  ADOBE need to keep up with the rest of us.  Lol.

I would rather not throw away any quality.  In fact where is 32bit?

[Jao vdL]

> I would rather not throw away any quality.  In fact where is 32bit?

LR 5 supports 32 bit files.

[TheDigitalDog]

DumbMarine wrote:

Although I do not accept the Loupe excuse.

In my case this is observation of sending high quality, high bit data and the same data in 24-bits per color through the same print process to an Epson 4900 which supports both. The differences are not worth even considering but by all means do your own test (hopefully correctly as I feel I've done).

Future proofing is what it is all about.  ADOBE need to keep up with the rest of us.

I don't understand the comment. The high bit data is the high bit data, no one is suggesting not using it. The question was about what comes out to the printer today, with arguably one of the better image quality output devices that support the data (again Epson) and there's nothing to look at. What happens in the future isn't a factor, the data is high bit and we can't nor want to put that toothpaste back into the tube.

[Jao vdL]

Like Andrew, I've tested the 16 bit printing thing (Lightroom on a Mac using an Epson) and, when I used printer profiles, I could not see any difference whatsoever. You can definitely see a difference between printer managed and Lightroom managed prints in 8 bit mode mostly by posterization of smooth gradients (skies and such). This disappears in 16-bit mode. So, 16-bit printing does not appear to give any benefit when you have Lightroom (or PS of course) manage colors. This was probably in Lightroom 4 days but I doubt anything has changed.

[Dave Rosser]

Canon provide a 16 bit print driver for Pixma Pro-100 using Windows XPS system to give 16 bit printing on win 7 & 8.

[dj_paige]

Quote "I am not aware of a single camera that Adobe has abandoned"

Very odd as you are a supposed expert with 10.000+ posts?  Have you tried importing Nikon D610 .NEFs into Lightroom 4?

Adobe hasn't abandoned D610 in LR4 ... using D610 RAW photos was never was a feature or capability of LR4, you couldn't do it the day LR4 was released, and you can't do it now ... so the word "abandoned" clearly doesn't apply ... and anyway Adobe provides a mechanism (at no charge) for converting those D610 RAW photos to DNG so they can be used in LR4

[dj_paige]

Most important - support new cameras for up to 5 years post relaese instead of abandoning the CUSTOMER and hard marketing Creative Cloud which is great for Companies

I am not aware of a single camera that Adobe has abandoned

Should background synchronize and optimise catalogs (databases) in the BACKGROUND!

This has been discussed many times in this forum, and there are technical reasons why optimizing catalogs in the BACKGROUND simply isn't going to happen. As far as synchronize catalogs in the BACKGROUND, I have no idea what that means, as there is no synchronize catalogs capability right now.

Use 64 bit operating systems and GPU acceleration.

LR does use 64 bit operating systems. With regards to the GPU, one of the lead programmers of Lightroom has explained that the goal of the team is to provide maximum performance, rather than to use a specific piece of hardware. The team felt that they could provide maximum performance via the CPU rather than the GPU so that is why LR 5 was designed that way. If I could put in *my* wish for LR 6 and beyond, it is that the designers of LR continue to follow this sensible policy of trying to obtain maximum performance using whatever hardware is available, and to not follow the less sensible policy of being forced to use a specific piece of hardware called the GPU if it does NOT deliver maximum performance.

[AnOpticalView]

Quote "I am not aware of a single camera that Adobe has abandoned"

Very odd as you are a supposed expert with 10.000+ posts?  Have you tried importing Nikon D610 .NEFs into Lightroom 4?  I am sure many others suffer similar fates?  I suspect as an official mouthpiece for ADOBE you must toe the official line.  It is very odd how so many issues are denied in official ADOBE forums?  Perhaps this is related to another post where I tell of ADOBE arrogance with Customers?

Quote "LR does use 64 bit operating systems. With regards to the GPU, one of the lead programmers of Lightroom has explained that the goal of the team is to provide maximum performance, rather than to use a specific piece of hardware. The team felt that they could provide maximum performance via the CPU rather than the GPU so that is why LR 5 was designed that way. If I could put in *my* wish for LR 6 and beyond, it is that the designers of LR continue to follow this sensible policy of trying to obtain maximum performance using whatever hardware is available, and to not follow the less sensible policy of being forced to use a specific piece of hardware called the GPU if it does NOT deliver maximum performance."

I am so sorry to be blunt but this is absolute GARBAGE!  Using GPU acceleration (where that is available) is proven technology used by Photoshop for gods sake!  A GPU is not a specific piece of hardware at all and modern machines can mostly exploit this.  Sounds like lazy developers?

Similarly, as so many are complaining about Lightrooms performance it practical looks like I am right and the developers have made a bad job of "The team felt that they could provide maximum performance via the CPU rather than the GPU"?

Quote "As far as synchronize catalogs in the BACKGROUND, I have no idea what that means, as there is no synchronize catalogs capability right now."

This is probably my fault for not being clearer but does not right clicking on any folder allow synchronisation?

Harsh I know but when people are put forward as experts and are blatantly wrong it is usually better to deal with it right away?  I hope your response goes some way to vindicating my other post about the attitude of ADOBE as a company?  Though as top dog they can do want they want ... for a while......

[TheDigitalDog]

DumbMarine wrote:

Have you tried importing Nikon D610 .NEFs into Lightroom 4?

What's the issue that converting to DNG wouldn’t provide? Is this NEF not supported in the latest DNG converter or LR4 directly?

[AnOpticalView]

Thanks Andrew, this is indeed part of my temporary workflow.  You can indeed use Adobe DNG but as only one of 4 Nikon DSLRs need this is does mean I have to vary that workflow for the D610.   I await the update.

[TheDigitalDog]

You can indeed use Adobe DNG but as only one of 4 Nikon DSLRs need this is does mean I have to vary that workflow for the D610.   I await the update.

The update isn't necessary or should come from Nikon! The JPEG from that camera and all other's are supported within LR as will all JPEG's from future cameras at least for the foreseeable future. The camera makers decide how to produce raw files (which are based on TIFF). That a D610 doesn’t open directly in an older version of LR, yet the JEPG does is all the result of Nikon, not Adobe. Nikon (and Canon to name a few) decide if they want to continuously change their raw files with each new camera. There's zero reason they must do this! Adobe has provided a free way to migrate newer proprietary camera files they took the time and money to decode into older software not forcing you to upgrade their product.

[AnOpticalView]

Who uses Jpegs?  I use principally a RAW or TIFF workflow.  Only reason I use JPEGS is for low quality digitally projected images.  They have their uses though for the web and family photoes.

[TheDigitalDog]

DumbMarine wrote:

Who uses Jpegs?  I use principally a RAW or TIFF workflow.  Only reason I use JPEGS is for low quality digitally projected images.  They have their uses though for the web and family photoes.

You missed the point. The JPEG is an open format. The raw isn't. Nikon could produce a raw just like the JPEG. All converters would understand and open it. They could just write a DNG!

[AnOpticalView]

Andrew you are correct, I did miss your point.  Indeed .nef is proprietory and subject to change (as it does with subsequent cameras)  but Nikon provides codecs which Adobe could use even for older software?   Let us not beat around the bush here.  It is in ADOBE's interest to get us to buy every new release so they slightly cripple and no longer support older release perhaps deliberately?

Once was the time when a decent company (especially a large one) would offer a degree of future proofing and indeed many still do .   NOT ADOBE though!

[TheDigitalDog]

DumbMarine wrote:Indeed .nef is proprietory and subject to change (as it does with subsequent cameras)  but Nikon provides codecs which Adobe could use even for older software? 

I don't know, but it's moot, Adobe and all other 3rd party converters have to hack the raw to support it's use. That is totally due to how the camera manufacturer's produce these files and there is no reason for them to do so. Nothing that benefits us end users, that's for certain.

It is in ADOBE's interest to get us to buy every new release so they slightly cripple and no longer support older release perhaps deliberately?

And their effort's with the free DNG converter, the creation of an open raw suggests otherwise. IF Adobe went along with the camera manufacturer's and didn't provide a way to convert the data, they could force you to upgrade.

[DdeGannes]

To be sure the technology for the processing of raw files from digital cameras is an evolving technology. Thus far Adobe with ACR and more recently Lightroom have had three versions to wit Process version 2003, Process version 2010 and Process version 2012. The numbers are siginificant as they indicate the year in which the technology was introduced/ improved. To keep pace/ up to date with these improvements it is necessary for the users to upgrade their software at a price and understandly so.

Surely its not difficult to understand that new technology is necessary to maximise the process of new camera raw files.

At the same time Adobe has provided free of cost Adobe DNG Converter which provides support for new camera models while utilizing older technology. You can live in the past if you so wish.

This policy has been in place since the inception of ACR.

[Jao vdL]

To be fair, there probably is no actual difference between a D600 nef and a D610 nef apart from the camera identifier. In fact, if you edit your D610 nef file to appear to be from a D600, it will likely import just fine and work just fine. The color might be off, but might actually be quite close. Adobe is in general quite cautious with files from new cameras and usually doesn't add support until they have done some profiling.

[AnOpticalView]

Quote "am telling you what one of the lead programmers from Adobe has explained. He has also gone ahead and explained why Lightroom has different hardware needs and so is different than Photoshop. This man knows the guts of the programming and the hardware and software issues involved, and this was his conclusion, and many people accept his statement. Nevertheless, if you feel that there is a way to make Lightroom have greater performance using the GPU than the CPU, please go ahead and explain how this can be done."

Jao,

     You are quite right.  I discovered this early however the fact is that the D610 is deeply embedded within the image metadata enough to make software that detects this throw a wobbly and not process it.

     Photoshop detects a compatible GPU that can be used for acceleration alongside the CPU.  You can switch this off and on in the preferences in Photoshop.  It makes a massive improvement especially now we are see 50megapixel cameras.  It is also exploited very effectively in Adobe After Effects where anyone that has ever had to wait for a sequence to render now waits about only a portion of the previous time.  Modern games also use it and it is their commercial success and the increasing demands to process more faster that led to the development (funded it).

While I dont wait around long in LR4 I see no reason not to leverage this technology.  Perhaps the LR team could do with talking to the PS team?

[dj_paige]

Quote "LR does use 64 bit operating systems. With regards to the GPU, one of the lead programmers of Lightroom has explained that the goal of the team is to provide maximum performance, rather than to use a specific piece of hardware. The team felt that they could provide maximum performance via the CPU rather than the GPU so that is why LR 5 was designed that way. If I could put in *my* wish for LR 6 and beyond, it is that the designers of LR continue to follow this sensible policy of trying to obtain maximum performance using whatever hardware is available, and to not follow the less sensible policy of being forced to use a specific piece of hardware called the GPU if it does NOT deliver maximum performance."

I am so sorry to be blunt but this is absolute GARBAGE!

I am telling you what one of the lead programmers from Adobe has explained. He has also gone ahead and explained why Lightroom has different hardware needs and so is different than Photoshop. This man knows the guts of the programming and the hardware and software issues involved, and this was his conclusion, and many people accept his statement. Nevertheless, if you feel that there is a way to make Lightroom have greater performance using the GPU than the CPU, please go ahead and explain how this can be done.

[AnOpticalView]

Quote "Adobe hasn't abandoned D610 in LR4 ... using D610 RAW photos was never was a feature or capability of LR4, you couldn't do it the day LR4 was released, and you can't do it now ... so the word "abandoned" clearly doesn't apply ... and anyway Adobe provides a mechanism (at no charge) for converting those D610 RAW photos to DNG so they can be used in LR4"

Is this not what I originally said that ADOBE abandon all previous versions of software as soon as a new version is released?  Case proven I think?